Volume 52 / Humanities

HISTORY: ETHNOHISTORY

Mesoamerica

S.L. CLINE, Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS a number of fine monographs have appeared, dealing mainly
with the Nahua and Maya spheres. Of particular note is a work by Louise Burkhart
about the dynamics of the spiritual conquest of the Nahuas, particularly as
seen through the Nahuatl texts created by the Spanish religious (items bi 89013973,
bi 89017002, and bi 91012359). In her book Burkhart has done much to elucidate
the Christianity which the natives absorbed, filtered through their own belief
system. On the same theme, outright Nahua resistance to Spanish efforts at Christianization
is seen in four case studies of Nahua "man-gods" in Serge Gruzinki's
monograph (item bi 91013765). Two articles on the confessional as a tool in
the Christianization process contribute to the increasingly sophisticated understanding
of the Nahua worldview and its colonial transformation. (items bi 90004039 and
bi 91013798). The translation of Alfredo López Austin's work on prehispanic
Nahua ideology and religious beliefs as they pertain to the human body is a
welcome addition to the English-language literature on Nahua beliefs. This work
is of particular interest given the shifts in worldview and notion of the person
which the Spanish religious were attempting to impose in the early colonial
period (item bi 89016998).

Other notable works in the Nahua sphere include Jacqueline Durand-Forest's
study of Chimalpahin, the great native annalist whose writings are so valuable
for understanding Nahua sociopolitical organization (item bi 89017010). Prehispanic
Aztec warfare and politics have received some attention (items bi 89017001,
bi 89017005, and bi 90002115), as has the topic of land tenure (items bi 90002113,
bi 90008969, and bi 90008978). Also worthy of note is Susan Gillespie's new
analytical work on the Aztec kings and the recasting of their histories (item
bi 89016999).

In the Maya sphere, two major works on the early colonial period have appeared.
Both Grant Jones' (item bi 91013794) and Inga Clendinnen's (item bi 91012386)
works deal with Maya resistance to Spanish conquest. Although concerned with
slightly different areas, time periods, and emphases, both studies illuminate
the encounter between Spaniards and Indians, with particular emphasis on the
native viewpoint. In both works, the history of the conquest and its aftermath
has advanced considerably from earlier views, which generally focused on the
Spanish sphere.

The last two years of publication in Mesoamerican ethnohistory have seen a
slowdown in the production of facsimile and critical editions of major texts
in the field. This may be a temporary hiatus, as publishers plan on issuing
certain texts to coincide with the Columbus Quincentennial. One exception to
this general paucity of publication of prehispanic and colonial texts is the
facsimile of Bernardino de Sahagún's chronicle of the conquest of Mexico
(item bi 91013901).

Since this is my final contribution to the Mesoamerican Ethnohistory section,
I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the the condition of field.
The last eight years have seen an explosion in the writing of indigenous history.
The native peoples are now much more often the subjects rather than the objects
of historical narrative. Their active role in shaping conquest and colonization
is now more clearly seen. Only a decade ago it was noteworthy when major monographs
on the colonial period relied substantially or solely on native-language materials:
this is no longer the case for the Nahua and Maya spheres. Standard divisions
in the field are breaking down. From its inception, ethnohistory has been an
interdisciplinary field, with active participation from historians, anthropologists,
linguists and art historians. However there has been a common categorization
that historians and linguists work on the colonial period, while anthropologists
and art historians work on the prehispanic. This can no longer be said to hold:
historians are venturing into the realm of the pictorial; art historians are
examining the alphabetic texts in the colonial codicies; and anthropologists
and archaeologists now study the colonial period. All this is profoundly encouraging,
and can only contribute to the progress of the field. The number of Mexicans
doing high level scholarly work has grown; this speaks well of Mexico's continued
interest in the field of ethnohistory as well as of level of training available
there. In North America, when this section of the Handbook was created in
the early 1960s, there were only a few stalwart ethnohistorians such as Charles
Gibson, Donald Roberston, H.B. Nicholson, and my father, Howard Cline. They
often felt they were voices crying in the wilderness. I think they would be
pleased by the state of our field today.